Film Review “Jack and Jill”

As the holiday season approaches, it’s time to make way for a new comedy starring the hilariously funny…Al Pacino? That’s right. Pacino has a small but pivotal role in “Jack and Jill” and, in a film full of people known for being funny, pretty much stands alone.

Jack (Sandler) is a successful creator of television commercials. One of his clients, the folks over at Dunkin’ Donuts, wants him to secure the talents of one Al Pacino to promote their new product, Dunk-A-Chino. But Jack has other things on his mind, mainly the upcoming yearly Thanksgiving visit of his twin sister, Jill (also Sandler). Where Jack has always been the popular twin, Jill has taken a back seat. Now, with their mother recently passed, the two must find a way to tolerate each other during the sure to be festive holiday season.

A one note joke that runs an hour and a half, “Jack and Jill” gives Sandler the chance to use the same “funny lady” voice that he used on his early comedy CDs. With his high pitched whine you almost expect to hear Jill proclaim, “they’re all gonna laugh at you,” or perhaps implore you to “play with your cock and balls for mama.” Along the way we meet many of the Sandler comedy troupe, including Allen Covert, who appears to be channeling the homeless man turned caddie he played in “Happy Gilmore.” Along with the regulars are some fun bits from such well known people as Jared from Subway and Vince, the Shamwow! Guy. We are also joined by his two young children: a young boy adopted from India when less than two weeks old and a little girl who is always curiously dressed exactly as her doll. The boy has discovered scotch tape and it’s fun to see what household item he’ll apply to his body next.

The premise gets annoying after awhile, but that is when Pacino shows up to make things interesting. He gets great laughs spoofing his serious side while on stage and, when his Oscar is accidentally damaged, zings the Academy Awards. He even manages to belt out “The Impossible Dream” from “The Man of La Mancha.” Pacino is truly, as they say in show business, a triple threat! And to see him play off his very stern on-screen reputation is a welcome treat. Hoo-ah!

The script loses steam shortly after it begins to boil, with the only new “idea” being to put Jack and Jill in another unusual situation. Look…they can jump rope! If anyone but Sandler had been playing Jill the film may have worked better. But his constant whining makes Jill more sympathetic, to the point where you can forgive her the occasional break of wind. Heck, when Pacino is on screen you can almost forgive anything.

Comments

You must have an Adam Sandler fetish. This movie is garbage, Sandler has made many an unwatchable film, but Bucky Larson and this piece of crap are an affront to movies everywhere. With 2 straight zero’s on the tomato-meter, maybe he wouldve gotten the hint and taken a sabbatical (until like, 2050 or something). But nooooooooo, Mr. Smith likes Sandler and *gasp* recommends this fiasco. Why?!?!? Sandler has got to go!!!

You just had to be the only critic on Rotten Tomatoes to give this Sandler by-the-numbers low-brow trash a positive review? Just trying to make a name for yourself? I don’t know who has less integrity, you or the purveyor of garbage Sandler.

Not to be snarky, I’m just curious, does it make you feel weird to be quite literally the only critic in America to give this movie a positive review? Do you feel like a trendsetter? Or is it annoying? And finally, your review seems to indicate you are unaware of the fact that this film had become a national joke from the first trailer on (see: the George C. Scott version of the trailer on youtube, etc.). Was this you willfully ignoring that fact to give the movie a fair shake, or does all of this come as a surprise to you?

Mike clearly just gave a negative review and rated it three stars so he can be the first to positively rate Jand and Jill, bringing his site exposure through RottenTomatoes. And extremely cheap and dishonest tactic, but hey, it works.

I can count on one hand the jokes I liked, I chuckled at the Oscar joke, the one at the end of the movie theater scene, and the bit with the jalapenos. That’s pretty much it in 90 minutes, and they weren’t laughs, they were “okay that’s tolerable”.

3 of 5 stars is how funny something like Horrible Bosses is. This was an accomplishment to finish it. I should get 3 gold star stickers for that.

The scenes with Al Pacino were not that great. The youtube video they show was shot from multiple angles, lame. He takes a phone call on stage, har har.

Thanks for your explanation Michael, even though it wasn’t needed. Just because the rest of America hates this movie, doesn’t mean that everyone has to. The people screaming “HOW CAN YOU NOT AGREE WITH WHAT I THINK” need to relax and realize that it’s all subjective and Michael liking this movie doesn’t invalidate your own opinion in the slightest.

That being said, this was a terrible movie, even for an Adam Sandler film. It was Uwe Boll bad and without Pachino, it would have gone down as one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

and please, stop with the accusations that he is trying to drum up publicity for himself or his website with this review. This is nothing more than his opinion of Jack and Jill, not some cry for attention.

If you want to see what that looks like, read a Pete Hammond review sometime.

This movie should have stayed at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. You have done the film world a disservice. Clearly this movie was designed to test the lowest denominator when it comes to the level of stupidity that can exist in a movie and it still turn a profit.

I have a stronger idea about this movie from NOT seeing it, as I would have lost so much faith in the world that I would not have been able to actually write a review about it, or any film ever again.

This will be the one and only time that I visit this website. I only came to see what kind of film genius would give this movie a good review. I am sufficiently entertained now, thank you. I’m sure your review and the subsequent talkback are way more entertaining than the movie.

So, DRIVE gets 2 1/2 stars out of 5, and JACK AND JILL gets 3 stars out of five?

Wow, that really hurts whatever credibility you had – but then again i work in the industry and have never even heard of you. But, hey, at least you got yourself a few more clicks through Rotten Tomatoes with this unsavory trick. You are up to 16 comments now! Well on your way to mediocrity.

Whether I agree or not, I appreciate a writer who has the courage to say how he feels, and express why, even if it is not popular opinion. Those bashing him as being a contrarian obviously don’t have the ability to think for themselves. They are probably the same people who will claim to love The Godfather even if they haven’t seen it just to fit in with the norm.

Michael, I don’t dislike your review because you gave Jack and Jill a 3/5 “Fresh” instead of “Rotten”. Instead I dislike your review because it makes almost no attempt to justify the rating. It’s persuasive writing 101 man, you have to define a thesis and then give clear examples to prove your point. You just gave a loose summary of the plot and interjected some commentary in between – you didn’t give enough justification for the rating you gave. I think you actually did a better job defending your review in these comments then you did actually writing the review.

The bigger problem here, Smith, is that you have not given this movie a good review. Your grade and your review are at odds with each other.

“A one note joke that runs an hour and a half,”
“The premise gets annoying after awhile,”
“The script loses steam shortly after it begins to boil, with the only new “idea” being to put Jack and Jill in another unusual situation”
“If anyone but Sandler had been playing Jill the film may have worked better”

This is not exactly glowing praise. Despite these comments, you reccomend the movie because Al Pacino had a funny scene?!?! Ridiculous. But thanks for the laughs, your review and the resulting avalanche of hostility has been funnier than any Adam Sandler movie.

This is a 101 course on how a no-name website gets clicks on their website guys. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

As for the rest of you clowns, instead of just posting snarky comments like a bunch of whiny ass internet denizens, how about you start clicking on some of the man’s god damned advertisements so he can start make a living in this shitty economy? Maybe then these ridiculous click bait articles will stop and he can start working on building his credibility instead of his bank account!

Listen, bro. Standing by your review doesn’t mean posting comments insulting your readers and rationalizing your statements. You wanna give you’re ‘opinion’ some credence? Don’t sit there an start being rude to those who took the time to read what you said. Bottom line is: It’s unprofessional.
If you really cared about what you had to say. You wouldn’t have to defend yourself to these people (me included). It makes you look weak, bro.
Have a great weekend.

Any credibility you possibly had as a legitimate movie critic has been completely removed with your positive review of what is clearly one of the worst movies to ever be made. You certainly must have an iq of 70 or under to think this movie is anything but the complete waste of time and money that it is.

You should find a new line of work because as a critic you are terrible.

Every time someone says “bro,” their credibility drops by 110%. Michael, keep it up. You don’t need to impress any of these tools. Your review was pretty balanced, I thought. Most of the people posting probably haven’t even seen the movie.

Hold the mfking phone, “bro”. You were the only critic who liked Old Dogs, up until now the worst movie of the past 10 years, and this is your defense? I challenge you to a private debate over the innate qualities of Old Dogs. The debate will go like this. You’ll say, “you know, actually I kind of liked Old D–” SPLASH! I will toss my freshly-ordered glass of milk on you and slap your face. Then you’ll say “hey, bro, champ, boss, I’m just a guy with an opinion–” SPLAT! I will smack a raspberry cheesecake in your face. Then I’ll take the tape out of the hidden camera I just recorded that with, put it up on a movie screen, watch it get 0% by all but one. You. Because food on face is hilarious.

How could you give a film like “Drive” only 2 stars?? I don’t understand you’re grading system. Drive is a fantastic, escape movie. To give a movie like that 2 stars an Jack and Jill 3?? That’s just really pathetic.

I have to say, I’m probably never going to see this film, so my opinion obviously holds a great deal of bias. The fact of the matter is, however, that Adam Sandler playing his twin sister MAKES NO SENSE. In order for a guy to have a twin sister, they would need to be fraternal/dizygotic twins, at which point they could NOT be identical. Having Adam Sandler play his own sister, then, is one of the most moronic casting moves EVER.

The trailer on its own is sufficient to form an objective conclusion that this film lacks muster. You don’t need to see a film to know it’s bad. A ridiculous premise and poor casting are often enough, if not always.

I don’t blame you for having an opinion, but I have to admit that it’s kind of pathetic to see you defending yourself in the comments section. Everyone coming here and giving you negative comments is clearly just wasting their time, but that doesn’t mean you need to do the same.

Um, a good movie. The logic that his films are so bad they are expected to be bad, therefore when they live up to expectations we can call them good is stupid. Very stupid.

“To me it’s a great chance to see Al Pacino as he’s never been seen before.”

Seriously? This movie worth $12 to see Al Pacino like he’s never been seen before? Yeah, seeing an actor who is not usually funny makes ever other horrible thing worth it. That’s how we should judge films. Forget the script, the direction, the other actors: a star doing something unusual is what is most important in any film.

You are a terrible critic. Don’t get your feelings hurt and start getting defensive about it like you have been because, after all, “I’m just offering my opinion.” Way to hurt your career, stupid.

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 65% of the audience liked Jack and Jill and gave it an average rating of 3 out of 5. So I would say Michael is right on target. By the way, this is a substantially better rating than Johnny Depp’s latest, Rum Diary which only got a 51% like rating from the audience

Was shocked to see your FRESH rating. Checked your review history…and its official. You sir are a terrible critic. I’ve never seen so many positive reviews for terrible movies. You are an enabler. The work you are doing is a disservice to the movie watching community.

@Mike, that 65% user rating you refer to was there BEFORE the movie was freaking released. Yes, over 8,000+ votes that it is good before people saw it. Now that people have actually seen the movie it is down to 59%.

65% of people who saw the movie decided they liked it. The real question, however, is what proportion of people who saw the trailer decided to go see it? I would wager far less than half. Based on how mercilessly they were promoting this on just about every tv show and network and website, I would wager that less than 0.01% of people who saw the ads and the trailer decided to see it.

That means that 0.0065% of people liked the movie. That means that 99.99% of people didn’t have the time, didn’t have the interest or were completely turned off from the movie. What it will really come down to is the number of people who wind up seeing the movie overall. If the movie makes, say, 100 million at the box office and the proportion of people calling it a good movie remains relatively constant, then the naysayers can eat their words. Otherwise, it’s an astonishingly deluded minority that approve of this terrible excuse for a movie.

Freedom of speech gives Mike the right to say how he feels about a movie. It gives his website viewers the right to give their opiinions about movies. It is not a forum for internet bullying and insults and nor a place to critique the reviewer. For those of you who use it as a means to insult and bully and call people names, I suggest two things- #1 grow up and #2 you get a life.

This is the biggest joke of a review I have ever read. I would say a large portion of your review was negative and it sounded as if you were grasping at straws to find something positive to say at all. And then at the end you said “screw it” and threw a 3/5 on there so people would read your review.

Alright, so over the past few days it seems like almost all the comments can be boiled down to either “You’re an idiot!” or “Is this man not entitled to his opinion?” Now, I’ll admit, I haven’t seen the movie, but the real problem with this review isn’t so much the rating, itself. It has more to do with the defense of the rating.

When you’re in such a minority of critics, it’s up to you to provide evidence to the contrary. Let’s first look at the other favorable review on RT. It starts out with “It won’t make many new converts, but Adam Sandler fans will be plenty happy with Jack And Jill…” Ok, so now I know at least why the guy likes the movie. In this review, though, it starts out by saying that Al Pacino is the only funny person a movie full of funny people. That’s doesn’t make the movie sound favorable at all.

Now, while the other review also didn’t do a good job defending itself (i.e. the only reason the movie was good was that Al Pacino and Adam Sandler apparently meshed well together), this review goes a step farther by being written in a way that makes it sound like a bad movie. You can’t make your primary defense be that Al Pacino saved this movie, and then only mention him briefly in the rest of the review. You have to build him up. About 90% of your review should be about how Al Pacino made this movie, despite having a small role. Furthermore, comments like “The boy has discovered scotch tape and it’s fun to see what household item he’ll apply to his body next,” sound more like a sarcastic quip on the movie’s poor humor than an enjoyable reoccurring joke, mainly because of their placement and wording.

See, I don’t read reviews because I have seen the movie and want to make sure “the big boys” agree with me. I read them because I want to know whether or not I should see this movie. If you thought it was good, and want to give it a favorable rating, make sure you back it up. If you don’t, people are going to call you an idiot (especially when almost every other review has given it an unfavorable rating). You can’t just come back and say “People: it’s an Adam Sandler movie! What are you expecting.” and expect others to go “You know what? You’re right. I was so stupid.” Adam Sandler doesn’t get to cop out on movies because “he’s Adam Sandler.” If you thought it was funny when compared to other Adam Sandler movies, it’s fine to mention that, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a good movie. Besides, you can recommend a movie without it being highly rated.

In conclusion: If you’re going to give something a positive rating, make sure the review is positive. You didn’t have to prove why it was the greatest movie ever, just why it was decent. All you said can be boiled down to “Al Pacino did a good performance,” but you didn’t really explain enough into his great performance to get it to matter. Your review made the movie sound like a 1/5 or 2/5 that you forgave for being and Adam Sandler movie, and for a small side character having a great actor give a great performance.

Mike. I must applaud your vision and courage. In the face of galactic evidence to the contrary and the polar opposite view of every-last-one of your peers, you find the good in this movie. You speak your mind and say what most of the non-elitist, movie-going public want to say…”this movie isn’t half bad”. Twice the Sandler is twice the fun, in my opinion.

This movie does not deserve 3 stars out of 3,000,000. I have seen plenty of movies in my life, but this is by far the worst. It is disgusting, crude, sexually inappropriate and not funny by any stretch of the imagination. I recommend that you go to the hardware store, buy yourself a lovely can of paint, cover a wall with it, and sit down with a bag of popcorn to watch it dry. Or you could melt your eyeballs with a blowtorch. Either would be a much better experience than seeing this movie. Communist countries use this movie as required programming to frighten the populace into submission. The U.S. tortures terrorists by showing them this movie. Do not involve yourself with this horrible excuse for a motion picture.

Thank you for a refreshingly positive review to a very good lighthearted film. In an age when it seems films and audiences either take themselves too seriously, or only find humor in hipster irony, it’s nice to see a film that can just let loose and have a little fun. Jack and Jill has more heart and charm than any Judd Apatow production. If the ad hominem reactions on this comments thread and across the web demonstrate, it’s not the film that has the problem, it’s perhaps hostile web critics and forun commentors who could probably lighten up a bit and not take themselves so seriously. I had a lot of fun with this filim!